Mark Irvine - Blogger, Campaigner, Organiser

I listened to one of our 'striking' MSPs on the radio - who is not going into work today at the Scottish Parliament - because he is out supporting the public sector pensions dispute. The MSP was put on the spot by the interviewer - to explain if he would or would not be getting paid - as he was not going about his normal duties. The MSP squirmed a bit before answering - that he would be prepared to donate his  day's pay to a charitable cause - of his choice. What unbelievable arrogance. If MSPs are not prepared to go into their normal place of work today - where ironically a debate on public sector pensions is taking place - then they should not be paid. If they want to go off and stand on picket lines or join demonstrations - that's fine - but why should the public purse subsidise these activities - when MSPs should be doing their day jobs. Nor should there be any questions of MSPs donating their day's pay to charity - as a means of ingratiating themse

I read somehwere that Labour MSPs are not going to their work at the Scottish Parliament as normal today - because they are not going to cross picket lines in support of the public sector pensions strike. But the same thing is not happening at Westminster apparently - where the Labour leadership will be going about their duties without any disruption. Please someone tell me that this is not true - or if it is true - then please explain the difference in what Labour is doing north and south of the border. Because this strikes me - if that's the right word - as devolution gone mad. The strike has nothing directly to do with MSPs in the Scottish Parliament - they are not being asked to cover the duties of any striking civil servants. So this is just posturing - while trying to curry favour with the unions - perhaps because there is a leadership election underway. Maybe that's it - maybe I've hit on the answer - but if so it's a sad day for democracy.  Are t

Yesterday's newspapers were full of angry rhetoric about more industrial action in the New Year - before today's public sector pensions strike even got underway. What puzzles me is why the trade unions support more favourable treatment for different groups of workers? Now I can understand why the head teachers union would fight to retain a final salary pension scheme - because it favours people who earn a big salary in the final stages of their careers. But the head teachers' final salary pension is being heavily subsidised - by the school cleaner, the classroom assistant and the school meals worker. So why don't the GMB, Unison and Unite - stand up and condemn this nonsense as strikingly unfair? Because that's exactly what it is - and ironically that's what the Labour party and the trade unions say they stand for - equality and fairness at work. In which case why do they not come out and say that everyone should have the same normal retirement age -

I had to laugh when I caught sight of the Daily Record yesterday. This Labour supporting paper ran two stories about the public sector pensions strike - which were  contradicatory and completely at odds with each other.   The first headline attacked the government for its proposed pension reforms - which were of course drawn up by John Hutton - work and pensions Minister in the last Labour government. The second attacked the 'golden goodbyes' paid to senior council officials in Glasgow - a story which the Daily Record has shamelessly lifted from the Sunday Herald. But what no one has had the guts to say is that the strike is about defending the final salary pension schemes - which allowed senior officials in Glasgow to walk out the door with these  huge pensions benefits. Which the people involved haven't actually earned - lower paid council staff and the taxpayer are picking up the bill for this generosity. No wonder the Daily Record sales have gone through the

Anyone who needs convicing that Iran is a rogue state - should reflect upon the attack on the British Embassy in Tehran. The safety of foreign diplomats is a basic duty of any civilised state - whatever differences that exist between respective countries - for thousands of years it has been accepted that you don't 'shoot the messenger'. Yet that is what the 'mad mullahs' in Tehran have done - by encouraging their proxies to attack what is effectively a tiny piece of the UK on foreign soil - where people should be safe and secure. The UK's response should be measured but firm - pull out all embassy staff and put pressure on Russia and China to fall in line with the rest of the international community. Because up until now Russia and China have effectively been helping to prop up this tyrannical regime - led by religious extremists. Iran has previous 'form' in this area - and a history of taking hostages as a way of prosecuting disputes. But it

The worst and saddest story of the week - so far anyway - is that of an elderly widow - Nellie Geraghty. Nellie (79) suffered serious head injuries and died - while defending herself against violent muggers who stole her handbag. The handbag contained £200 in cash - but the reason Nellie put up such a fight was that she also carried around a small box which contained the ashes of her husband - who died 17 years ago. Two youths have been arrested - aged 14 and 17 - and are being questioned on suspicion of murder. The immediate thought that went through my head when I heard the news was - that could have been my Mum - on her way to church or the shops - only to be set upon by two thugs. Now if the two people in custody are the ones responsible for the crime - to my mind they should not be allowed to get away with a plea of - 'we didn't mean to kill the 79 year-old grandmother, honestly. It was an accident'. The problem is that violent criminals often use this defe

The fact the country is going to hell in a hand cart - doesn't seem to dent the nation's appetite for pap and nonsense about 'Celebrity Britain' - which somehow or other makes its way into the news. My jaw dropped the other day when I read an inane interview with Ann Widdecombe - the former MP and official 'worst dancer in the world' - which managed to squirrel its way on to the BBC's web site. Ann was complaining - loud and long - to someone called Fern Britton that she was "deliberately" snubbed by the Prime Minister - David Cameron - who denied her a seat in the House of Lords. An honour and a peerage that's worth £300 a day in tax free allowances plus expenses - of course - on top of your MP's generous pension. How dare he - the bounder - doesn't he appreciate Ann's unbridled sense of entitlement - and overblown opinion of herself? I blame all these people who watch Strictly Come Dancing - for puffing up the already in

I read all the coverage of Labour's Scottish leadership election - at the weekend. I know - I must be mad - but soon the excitment will end and it will all be over. If I had a vote - which I don't - I think I would vote for Ken Macintosh because he at least sounds like a normal human being - who is capable engaging with and communicating with ordinary people - without resorting to political gobbledegook. My second preference vote would be for Tom Harris - who is also a good communicator and the one most willing - seems to me anyway - to face up to and challenge the 'conservative' nature of the Labour party in Scotland.  To my mind Scotland has two 'conservative' parties - the Tories and Scottish Labour - the latter being completely dominated by vested interests and an old-fashioned trade union mindset. My third preference would be for Johann Lamont - whom I don't know and I'm sure is a nice person - but she doesn't come across to me as a &#

John Rentoul had an excellent article in the Independent the other day - in which he bemoaned the 'yah-boo' nature of modern politics - while noticing some signs of intelligent life in the Labour party.  So maybe all is not lost - yet. The basic decision to tackle the country's 'out-of-control' spending and borrowing habits - or Plan A as it's referred to in the media - is clearly the right thing to do. So attacking the government on all fronts is plainly bonkers - because Labour would do little different - and the public know that fine well.  In which case Labour should be arguing for specific intiatives that will target growth and potentially create jobs - instead of implying its steadfast support for every crackpot issue under the sun. Such as the 'anti-capitalist' protesters outside St Paul's Cathedral - or the trade unions' defence of final salary pension schemes.  Or to put it another way - if Labour had a bit more balls instead

Back in the bad old days - the real bad old days of the 1980s when the Thatcher government was in power - I lived and worked in London. I was a fullt-ime official with NUPE at the time - which has since become part of Unison - but I remember we had a big national day of action in the health service - in 1988 - over pay. I remember it vividly because I worked with a great bunch of young union reps at St Mary's Hospital in Paddington - one of the big London teaching hospitals - who were all nurses. And they were all extremely bright, articulate and unafraid of speaking up in front of the media - whose cameras loved them especially if they were in uniform. But when it came to the 'day of action' - which we called a strike to attract maximum attention and publicity - virtually no one was on strike. We negotiated with the hospital management so that nurses and other staff could join the protest outside the main hospital entrance - in their uniforms - and the key player

Strikes and strike ballots are very blunt instruments - as more and more people will start to realise - as next week's public sector pension strikes get underway. What exactly are people striking for - is a reasonable question to ask? 1 About plans to introduce career average pensions - and end final salary schemes 2 About the planned increase in the normal retirement age 3 About the planned increase in employee contributions The answer to these questions will vary enormously - depending on whether someone is a head teacher or senior council official - a home carer or a classroom assistant. Yet people are all asked the same question - a simple one-size-fits-all question - when asked if they are willing to go on strike. As if their interests are all the same - which they're not of course. And when you factor in the impact on a low turnout - it's reasonable to ask who is actually voting to go on strike and for what purpose? Because the low paid - for example